|
THESE MINUTES ARE PRESENTED IN DRAFT FORM AND HAVE NOT
BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE ENFIELD PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION. OFFICIAL COPIES OF MINUTES, WHEN APPROVED,
CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE TOWN CLERK OR PLANNING OFFICE.
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JULY 8, 2010
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, July 8, 2010 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Charles Duren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Charles Duren, Chairman
Peter Falk
Nicles Lefakis (arrived at 7:15 p.m.)
Charles Ladd
Kathleen Sarno
Alan Drinan, Alternate
Ronald Gregory, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: José Giner, AICP, Director of Planning
FIRE SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENT
Chairman Duren gave the fire safety announcement.
MINUTES
a. June 17, 2010 Regular Meeting
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve the Minutes of June 17, 2010. Chairman Duren made a correction on page five, paragraph five. “Metal poles” should read “wooden poles.” The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote. Chairman Duren noted the wooden poles are still up. Zoning Enforcement Officer Virginia Higley stated she will look into this.
5. Staff Comments
a. Town Attorney (in writing)
Chairman Duren stated items 1 and 2 were taken care of. This involves Robbins v. ZBA. Mr. Giner stated there were a couple of motions pending before the Court. One was to reargue and one is for a clarification.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in person)
Zoning Enforcement Officer Virginia Higley stated the kennel licensing went much smoother this year. She did a little form and the regulations state you can have no more than four dogs. In the past, it was hard to enforce this. Last year the Assistant Town Clerk, Mr. Giner and Ms. Higley met and devised a system where the people who have over four dogs will keep them but they list them every year. As they die or go away, they can’t replace them so ultimately everybody will be down to four dogs. This is the second year and it seems to be going smoothly.
Ms. Higley stated on June 18 she went to a seminar on illegal conversions to rooming houses and boarding houses. She noted there has been an increase in the town of these. She did find some good ideas that she will send the Commission information on for the next meeting.
c. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner stated he emailed the Commission a notice that MassMutual was intending to do a farmers market for employees only inside their own secure area. He decided to treat it as an accessory use. They also have a barber shop, a travel agency, a bank and almost a full service restaurant that have been treated as such. As long as they are not advertising and letting the public in, Mr. Giner determined that this is an accessory use.
Mr. Giner stated A. W. Hastings that was recently approved for their site at the corner of Niblick realized once they went on the site that the building had some poles in areas where they were going to have their overhead doors. They may be shifting things around but not really changing the layout at all. Mr. Giner asked that he be allowed to approve this administratively. When it does come in, he will make sure the Fire Marshal is okay with it and have the Town Engineer take a look at anything that needs to be shifted.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to allow Jose Giner to administratively approve the changes to the truck bays for A. W. Hastings Company. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
Mr. Giner stated there is an ATM kiosk at Scitico Plaza that Rockville Bank runs right now. They are proposing to change the ATM without doing any additional site work and they have asked if that could be done administratively. Mr. Giner showed the Commission a site plan. The ATM is changing a little bit and they are providing an overhang. There are no changes to the drives.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to allow Jose Giner to administratively approve the ATM improvements for Rockville Bank at Scitico Plaza. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
Mr. Giner stated one of the Commissioners had asked about the island at the entrance of Phoenix Avenue. Mr. Giner called the Beautification Committee and they had been in contact with the Rotary and they were looking to get some professional help for this landscaping. It was more than just weeding and there were some invasive species on the site. Mr. Giner will follow up on this.
Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to change the order of the agenda and consider XSP10-14 and XSU10-13 first and second under Public Hearings, Item 11. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
Chairman Duren stated he talked to Mr. Giner about Peter Bryanton’s submission for the Plan of Development. Chairman Duren’s opinion was that he had time to submit it for the record and that the Commission doesn’t accept that addition. If he wants it in later, there will be a separate hearing and it can be an amendment. For this plan of development, it will be left as it is and as it was submitted.
Commissioner Ladd asked if Mr. Giner is going to give the Commission a list of all the changes in the Plan of Development. Mr. Giner stated he will have that for the Commission in their next meeting packet.
Chairman Duren stated he asked Mr. Giner to consider the possibility of special meetings to discuss the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Chairman Duren announced the Commission won’t be hearing PH#2681.02, Modification for the Grocery Beer License at 565 Enfield Street.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Dorothy Allen, 66 Belmont Avenue, had a comment about PH#2681.02. Chairman Duren requested that Ms. Allen wait until the hearing is brought up this evening.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Duren stated he has an email from World Properties, Corporate Road, addressed to Chairman Duren regarding a zone change of the entire parcel and the possibility of an informal meeting regarding the approximately thirty acres. Chairman Duren read the email for the Commission’s information. Mr. Giner stated they are allowed to meet informally under State Statutes. Following some discussion of when to hear this item on a preliminary basis, Chairman Duren stated this may have to go to September. In response to a question from Commissioner Sarno, Chairman Duren stated this is part of the industrial plan for the Plan of Development for both this year and next year. It is also one that the town has been looking at to try to get the state to fund. Mr. Giner stated there have been some preliminary wetlands approvals on crossings. Chairman Duren suggested Mr. Giner ask if they can come in in September. Commissioner Drinan stated in September, they would be able to move forward on a more firm application. Mr. Giner will communicate to them about a September meeting. He noted he doesn’t know what time pressures they are under.
BOND RELEASES
a. SPR#896 – Request for release of $10,191 Erosion and Sediment Control Bond for Business Condos at 139 Hazard Avenue, Denis Letourneau, applicant.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to release the $10,191 Erosion and Sediment Control Bond for SPR#896, Business Condos at 139 Hazard Avenue. Reference is made to the July 7 correspondence from John Cabibbo recommending release. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
b. SPR#1429 – Request for release of $6,900 Erosion and Sediment Control Bond for new medical office building at 155 Hazard Avenue, Karios Properties, Owner.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to release the $6,900 erosion and sediment control bond for SPR#1429, New Medical Office Building at 155 Hazard Avenue. Reference is made to correspondence from John Cabibbo dated July 7, 2010 recommending release. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS – From June 17, 2010
a. PH#2693 – Special Use Permit to allow an elderly residential complex consisting of 96 units in five residential buildings along with two office buildings at 153 South Road on property zoned Residential-44 and Industrial-1, Map 55, Lots 80, 93 and 99; Enfield Properties, Applicant; Anthony Troiano, Jr., Alan K. Tracy, Frank J. Troiano and Anthony Spazzarini, Owners. (Must close tonight unless an extension is granted)
Chairman Duren noted receipt of Exhibit 40 in the Commission’s packet which states that a motion was made by Councilman Nelson and seconded by Councilman Dumont to approve Resolution 964. The result of it was they authorized the Town Manager and the Town Attorney to execute and file on behalf of the Council all documentation necessary to effect the discontinuance and reservation of the easement of Barrett Road. Chairman Duren stated this is the item the Commission has been waiting for regarding this public hearing.
Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has a revised memo with a revised motion. The changes to the motion included condition #10 which the applicant’s volunteered at the May 20 hearing which is to indicate that the elevators will be a minimum of 86” long.
Chairman Duren asked if the applicant had any problems with the conditions. Attorney Fahey stated they have no problems with them.
Mr. Giner would like to change the language in condition 11 concerning Barrett Road. He talked to the Town Attorney today and one of the maps they are going to sign and file is referenced as part of the discontinuance. He doesn’t want to get into a Catch 22 where we don’t sign plans until it has been discontinued. It really won’t be discontinued until the signed plans are filed. The wording for Condition 11 would be that no permits shall be issued until this portion of the discontinued Barrett Road is included in the site plan. This condition should be under Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to approve PH#2693 – Special Use Permit to allow an elderly residential complex consisting of 96 units in five residential buildings along with two office buildings at 153 South Road on property zoned Residential-44 and Industrial-1, Map 55, Lots 80, 93 & 99; Enfield Properties, applicant; Anthony Troiano, Jr., Alan K. Tracy; Frank J. Troiano and Anthony F. Spazzarini, owners, subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be required to be revised by the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Proposed Elderly Housing and Commercial Development South Road Enfield, Connecticut, Site Plan and Special Permit Application, Revised April 23, 2010”, Vicinity Map, Development Team and List of Drawings, by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc.
“Master Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet MA-1; Scale 1”=80’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Layout Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet LA-1; Scale 1”=40’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Layout Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet LA-2; Scale 1”=40’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Landscape Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet LS-1; Scale 1”=40’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Landscape Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet LS-2; Scale 1”=40’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Landscape Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet LS-3; Scale 1”=40’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 02-10-10, revised to 4/23/10.
“Landscape Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet LS-4; Scale: “No Scale”; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 02-10-10, revised to 4/23/10.
“Grading and Soil Erision & Sediment Control Plan Prepared for Troiano & Sons South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet GR-1; Scale 1”=40’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 10-23-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Grading and Soil Erision & Sediment Control Plan Prepared for Troiano & Sons South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet GR-2; Scale 1”=40’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 10-23-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Utility Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet UT-1; Scale 1”=40’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Utility Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet UT-2; Scale 1”=40’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Preliminary Lighting Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet LT-1; Scale 1”=40’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Phasing Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet PH-1; Scale:1”=60’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 2-10-10, revised to 4/23/10.
“Phase 1 Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet PH-2; Scale:1”=50’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 2-10-10, revised to 4/23/10.
“Site Details Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet SD-1; Scale:“N.T.S.”; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Site Details Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet SD-2; Scale:“N.T.S.”; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Site Details Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet SD-3; Scale:“N.T.S.”; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Site Details Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet SD-4; Scale:“N.T.S.”; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Site Details Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet SD-5; Scale:“N.T.S.”; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 12-11-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Notes Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet NT-1; Scale:“N.T.S.”; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 10-23-09, revised to 4/23/10.
“Property Survey Prepared for Troiano & Sons South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet 1; Scale 1”=60’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 01-22-07 , revised to 03/08/10.
“Signing and Pavement Marking Plan Prepared for Enfield Properties South Road Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet RW-1; Scale 1”=40’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 5-03-10, revised to 5/04/10/10.
“Age Restricted Housing South Four Group 153 South Road Enfield, Connecticut” Front and Rear Elevations, 18-Unit Building, Sheet A-1, by Kemper Associates Architects, dated 4/26/10.
“Age Restricted Housing South Four Group 153 South Road Enfield, Connecticut” Right and Left Side Elevations, 18-Unit Building, Sheet A-2, by Kemper Associates Architects, dated 4/26/10.
“Age Restricted Housing South Four Group 153 South Road Enfield, Connecticut” First Floor Plan, 18-Unit Building, Sheet A-3, by Kemper Associates Architects, dated 4/26/10.
“Age Restricted Housing South Four Group 153 South Road Enfield, Connecticut” Second Floor Plan, 18-Unit Building, Sheet A-4, by Kemper Associates Architects, dated 4/26/10.
“Age Restricted Housing South Four Group 153 South Road Enfield, Connecticut” Third Floor Plan, 18-Unit Building, Sheet A-5, by Kemper Associates Architects, dated 4/26/10.
“Age Restricted Housing South Four Group 153 South Road Enfield, Connecticut” Attic Storage Plan, 18-Unit Building, Sheet A-6, by Kemper Associates Architects, dated 4/26/10.
“Age Restricted Housing South Four Group 153 South Road Enfield, Connecticut” Front and Rear Elevations, 24-Unit Building, Sheet A-7, by Kemper Associates Architects, dated 4/26/10.
“Age Restricted Housing South Four Group 153 South Road Enfield, Connecticut” Right and Left Side Elevations, 24 - Unit Building, Sheet A-8, by Kemper Associates Architects, dated 4/26/10.
“Age Restricted Housing South Four Group 153 South Road Enfield, Connecticut” First Floor Plan, 24-Unit Building, Sheet A-9, by Kemper Associates Architects, dated 4/26/10.
“Age Restricted Housing South Four Group 153 South Road Enfield, Connecticut” Second Floor Plan, 24-Unit Building, Sheet A-10, by Kemper Associates Architects, dated 4/26/10.
“Age Restricted Housing South Four Group 153 South Road Enfield, Connecticut” Third Floor Plan, 24-Unit Building, Sheet A-11, by Kemper Associates Architects, dated 4/26/10.
“Age Restricted Housing South Four Group 153 South Road Enfield, Connecticut” Attic Storage Plan, 24-Unit Building, Sheet A-12, by Kemper Associates Architects, dated 4/26/10.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. The detail sections shall be revised to show 8 inch depth of processed stone instead of aggregate base under the sidewalks, pavement and dumpster pads
2. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
3. The file number “PH 2693” shall be displayed prominently on each of the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
4. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this motion shall be placed on the final plans submitted for signing.
5. For all sewer pipes, show on the drawing(s) the length, diameter, slope, location, and type of pipe; for inverts show elevation in and out, and for frame(s) show elevation at the top. Show on the drawing(s) details for sanitary sewer structures and a sanitary sewer trench detail. Sewer system shall conform to Town of Enfield, Subdivision Regulations, revised as of February 12, 2002, and on the Town of Enfield Public Works Department drawings titled Typical Details I, II and III.
6. Label on the plans the size, slope and length of the laterals for Buildings # 2, 4, 5 and Commercial Buildings A, B.
7. The misspelling of “Erosion” on Sheets GR-1 and GR-2 should be corrected.
8. The Conservation Restriction language to be recorded shall be submitted for Town Attorney review.
9. The Final Draft of the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants shall be submitted for Town Attorney review and approval.
10. The Final plans shall indicate that the elevators shall be a minimum of 86” long to accommodate Enfield Emergency Medical Services’ concerns as indicated by the applicant’s architect at the May 20, 2010 hearing.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
11. No permits shall be issued until the portion of the discontinued Barrett Road that is included in the Site Plan has been transferred and merged with the parcels that are the subject of this application.
12. An Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration bond shall be submitted in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
13. Final approval for the Water Supply delivery system shall be obtained from the Hazardville Water Company.
14. One set of mylars and three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
15. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director unless waived by the Commission.
16. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
17. Final approvals shall be obtained from the Water Pollution Control Division for the sewer hook ups.
18. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
19. All necessary “Stop” signs or other required traffic safety devices shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Traffic Safety Officer prior to the first CO of any given phase.
20. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
21. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the drainage has been completed.
22. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the sub-grade and base course for the private road and drives have been completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
23. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the Enfield Water Pollution Control Division has inspected and approved the sewer connection for the project.
24. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the Water Company has inspected and approved the water delivery system for the project.
General Conditions:
25. Detailed Site Plan approval applies to the residential phase only. Detailed Site Plan approval for the commercial phase shall be required prior to the development of the commercial properties.
26. This project is also subject to Conditions of Approval for Inland Wetlands Permit IW #534
27. Wetland mitigation has been proposed that includes rotational mowing of the open field area to the south of the commercial development so that it is maintained. The schedule for this mowing is included in REMA Ecological Services, LLC March 16, 2010 letter report regarding “Mitigation Monitoring, Post-Construction Vegetation Management and Release of Biological Control for Purple Loosestrife”. This mitigation is shall continue for the life of the development.
28. This approval has been approved for phasing. Any change to the phasing plan will require the approval of the Commission.
29. This approval is for the specific use identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
30. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
31. This project is subject to conditions of approval from the Enfield Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency filed separately in the Planning Department.
32. A Special Permit approved by the Commission is valid for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of approval of such application. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained within a year of the effective date of this approval or the permit shall be rendered null and void. The Commission may grant an extension of this period for an additional one (1) year upon written request of the applicant.
33. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 8, 2015 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
34. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
Chairman Duren stated he thinks this is a benefit to the seniors in town and the applicant has shown the designs and thought going into it for the seniors with the elevators and so forth. It will be a definite help to the seniors in town and it is something that has been needed.
Commissioner Falk added it meets the specifications of the zoning regulations.
Commissioner Sarno felt the applicants had gone above and beyond and presented a nice application.
a. XSP#10-14 – Site Plan to allow two trailers to be placed adjacent to an existing athletic field at Enfield High School for the purposes of concessions, storage and shelter, on property located at 1264 Enfield Street in an R-33 District, Map 19, Lot 68, Town of Enfield, Owner/Applicant. (Deadline for Decision – July 22 Meeting)
Pya Hawkes, the town Public Works Director, stated the town is looking to place two trailers at Enfield High School in support of the Booster Club. The first trailer south of the bleachers is going to be a shelter trailer for the athletic participants. During half time they can go in there and rest for the next half. It is going to have electricity only.
Mr. Hawkes stated the trailer located to the north of the bleachers is a concession stand. They will be providing hot dogs, hamburgers, and different types of foods during the game and during half time. That trailer will have electricity supplied from the existing light poles. It also will have water. They will pipe the water from the meter pit that they installed about a year and a half ago. Because there is going to be food cooked at this trailer location, they need to have a grease receptor on the outside of the trailer. There is a sewer line that runs behind the bleachers which they can tie into. At the present time, Mr. Hawkes has not submitted the actual layout to the Water Pollution Control superintendent or the Health District. His next step is to get their approval.
Mr. Hawkes stated both trailers are approximately twenty-five to thirty feet from the end of the bleachers and they are approximately sixty feet from the setback of the back right of way line.
Mr. Hawkes did hand out a sketch of what the inside of the concession stand trailer will look like. It will house some fryers, a grill, a stove, a charcoal broiler, refrigerators and sinks. There will be an awning in front of it to protect customers from inclement weather.
Mr. Giner stated in the meeting packet are a couple of photographs of the trailers. They are basically modified construction trailers. In response to a question from Chairman Duren, Mr. Hawkes noted they would be staying the same color.
Commissioner Falk asked if something is needed from the Health Department because there is serving of food. Chairman Duren stated that would be a condition of approval.
Mr. Giner stated they do need to get that permission and they also need an authorization from the Sewer Commission.
Mr. Giner recommended Condition 4, that all final approvals from the Water Pollution Control, the North Central Health District and the Fire Marshal shall be obtained before the issuance of permits.
Chairman Duren asked if it is cylinder gas. Mr. Hawkes stated it is.
Commissioner Falk had a concern about vandalism because the trailer is located in a remote area of the lot. Mr. Hawkes stated the town would take care of all maintenance. Chairman Duren asked if there will be any alarms with the gas out there. Mr. Hawkes stated they can put a remote alarm on there.
Commissioner Sarno asked what will be stored in the trailer. Mr. Hawkes stated if they are going to use one trailer for storage it would be the shelter trailer. However, he doesn’t believe they are actually going to store anything. They do have a shed on the site for storage.
Chairman Duren asked if the shelter would have heat. Mr. Hawkes stated it would not. It is for the football players in the fall.
Commissioner Falk stated he assumes this is a permanent fixture on the site and will be there until it falls apart. Mr. Hawkes stated the trailers are on wheels now but will be placed on blocks. They will also pour a concrete pad out there.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to waive the full submission requirements in accordance with Section 9.2.10C with the finding that the information is not necessary in order to decide on the application’s conformance with these Regulations. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve XSP#10-14 – Site Plan review to allow two trailers to be placed adjacent to an existing athletic field at Enfield High School for the purposes of concessions, storage and shelter, on property located at 1264 Enfield Street in an R-33 District, Map 19, Lot 68; Town of Enfield, Owner/Applicant, subject to the conformance with the record and the following conditions:
General Conditions:
1. This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
3. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 8, 2015 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
4. Prior to the issuance of any permits, final approval from the Water Pollution Control, North Central Health District and the Fire Marshal shall be obtained.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. XSU#10-13 – Special Use Permit to allow light poles to be installed at an existing Little League field located at Powder Hollow Park at 30 Dust House Road in an R-33 District, Map 83, Lot 139, Town of Enfield, Owner/Applicant.
Pya Hawkes, Andre Greco and Richard Landowski appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Mr. Greco stated the Town of Enfield along with the Enfield Little League is looking for a special use permit to install lights on the 60’ Little League field at Powder Hollow. It would be similar in size and scope to the project that was completed a couple of years back by the Thompsonville Little League over at Asnuntuck. There would be less complexities in terms of electrical installation and not having the surrounding community at Powder Hollow that they have at Asnuntuck.
Mr. Greco stated they are working very closely with the town and their goal is to have these lights up and functional by September so that they can be used for fall baseball.
Commissioner Falk stated it is a remote area. Over the years some of the dug outs have been exposed to vandalism and he asked if that is a concern with these light poles. Mr. Greco stated it is not a concern. All of the switches to turn the lights on and off will be in locked containers. The pole is a 60’ steel pole with the lights at the top with disconnect boxes on each pole that are fifteen to twenty feet in the air and unreachable. So there really isn’t anything to vandalize unless someone went out there with a firearm and started shooting the lights.
Commissioner Falk noted at the top of the hill is a residential area. It is Southview. He didn’t know if the noise could reach up there and seeing as they are going to be playing at night, is there a limitation on the hours of operation. Mr. Greco stated the latest they start a fall baseball game is 6:00 p.m. The noise level would be at zero no later than 8:00 p.m. except for Friday and Saturday nights. That might go until 9:00 p.m. Mr. Landowski stated the age group if 5 through 12 and the latest the games would last would be 10:00 p.m.
Commissioner Lefakis asked when would the lights go on and off. They would only be used for the game and then they would go on how long after the game was over. Mr. Greco stated the disconnect for the lights is going to be outside of left field near the parking lot. The last person to leave that evening would actually turn the lights off. You’re talking a minimal amount of time or about fifteen minutes after the game has ended. The last coach to leave the field is going to turn those lights off.
Chairman Duren asked about glare and how much will be above the playing field. Mr. Greco stated all the lights are angled specifically at the field and they have to meet Little League standards in terms of number of lumens per square foot. That changes based on the area of the field. There is no glare.
Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the public.
Greg McNotch, 17 Ridgefield Road, spoke in favor of the proposed lights. His son has been playing baseball for a few years and last fall was the first time he played at Asnuntuck with the lights. He stated it was very nice to see the kids able to keep playing as it is getting dark. Some of the times they have had to end games early because it was getting too dark. Mr. McNotch stated it would be a good thing for the Little League in town and it will open it up for other towns to come in and play at Enfield’s fields.
Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to waive the full submission requirements in accordance with Section 9.2.10C with the finding that the information is not necessary in order to decide on the application’s conformance with these Regulations. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve XSU#10-13 – Special Use Permit to allow light poles to be installed at an existing Little League field located at Powder Hollow Park at 30 Dust House Road in an R-33 District, Map 83, Lot 139, Town of Enfield, Owner/Applicant, subject to the conformance with the record and the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
1. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary in the office of the Town Clerk. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
General Conditions:
2. This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
4. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 8, 2015 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
b. PH#2691.02 – Request for modification of conditions previously approved on 2/18/10 for a grocery beer license to be located at an existing convenience store at 565 Enfield Street in a Business Local (BL) District, Map 23, Lot 274, Bakul Shah, Applicant; Saloneel LLC, Owner. (May be kept open until 7/22/10)
Chairman Duren stated the Commission has a request to change the date of this hearing from July 8 to July 22, 2010.
Chairman Duren stated the hearing is to change a condition of approval. The beer license has already been granted.
Mr. Giner confirmed the beer license has been granted with conditions. The applicant is asking for a modification to the conditions. Mr. Giner stated there was a typo in the legal notice and the PH number should be PH#2691.02.
Commissioner Ladd stated he wants to change conditions two and three.
Mr. Giner stated that is correct. The conditions he is asking to change included a condition that he had to curb the north side of his building and post no parking signs along the north side.
Chairman Duren stated he is also asking for a fee waiver. Mr. Giner stated the ordinance provides for fee waivers if it is similar to a previous application that’s been submitted. The town has had to re-advertise this and spend money. The ordinance is fairly specific. It has to be for an application that’s been withdrawn or that doesn’t involve any staff review.
Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the audience.
Dorothy Allen, 66 Belmont Avenue, stated she is sorry she missed the original meeting about the beer license being granted which she was opposed to. She believes this is about the parking situation. The situation there now is a problem. The parking lot is so shallow that cars that are entering cannot enter until the cars on the property leave. She has been in a situation where the traffic is backed up on Route 5 and she has almost been rear ended. At certain times of the day, there is no available space. There is one vacant store front that severely limits the allotment of vehicles that can be used for that building. It is Ms. Allen’s understanding that the beer and liquor is to be sold in the convenience store and not in the adjacent empty store.
Mr. Giner stated they may be expanding the floor space of the convenience store. That is all retail to retail.
Chairman Duren stated when he asked him, he said it was at the back of the store. Chairman Duren had asked if it was visible from the cashier’s booth. It is his understanding that he is staying within that store. Chairman Duren noted the Commission cannot control his moving that beer license into the other building. Mr. Giner stated it is a shopping plaza and it is all retail. When the grocery store came in, there was a certain number of parking spaces that they are short. But like any other preexisting nonconforming use, they are entitled to the difference between what is required today and what they have. If there is a deficiency of ten parking spaces, we can’t prohibit another retail store from going in to a retail space.
Chairman Duren stated they have that big parking lot in the back that is not used to its utmost. It used to be. Chairman Duren remembered when the pharmacy was there and you could enter from the back. The present owner said that was closed and he can’t do that.
Commissioner Ladd stated there are twenty-four spaces in the back.
Chairman Duren stated when the applicant comes in, maybe we should get him to sign that there is parking in the back.
Ms. Allen stated he only has one clerk with one register and it is not a fast turnover in this business. The parking lot doesn’t empty out quickly. The traffic backs up on Route 5 and it is a situation that should be looked at.
Chairman Duren continued this hearing to July 22, 2010.
c. PH#2695 – Special Use Permit to allow limited motor vehicle sales at 38 Post Office Road in an Industrial 2 (I-2) District, Map 47, Lot 51, Interstate Motors, LLC, Applicant; Post Office Road, LLC, Owner. (May be kept open until 7/22/10)
Attorney Thomas Fahey, Ed Spazzarini, Mark Spazzarini and Jay Usery appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Chairman Duren reported the sign has been posted and the Commission has certification from the owner and letters from the Fire Marshal.
Attorney Fahey submitted the affidavit regarding the sign posting. He stated they were successful at a previous meeting in obtaining a zone change from I-1 to I-2. They explained to the Commission at that time that the use they wanted to put this property has to do with wholesale automobile sales limited to five vehicles at any one time. Tonight they want to show how they comply with the special permit requirements of the regulations and tell the Commission what is going to happen on the site.
Jay Usery of J. R. Russo and Associates stated the address of this property is 38 Post Office Road. It is the new office for Spazzarini Construction. Mr. Usery pointed out the location on the site map. There is parking for the office building and construction company located in the front with two entrances. The main entrance for the construction company is located to the easterly side and access to the back area is open for the storage of construction equipment. There is a screening fence that comes across the front. There is a gate to access through to the back. The area for storage of the five vehicles talked about in the application is behind the fenced in area. It won’t be visible when the fence is closed but the gate would be open and there would be an access if somebody wanted to come and look at the cars. The rest of the activity would take place in the building. Mr. Usery pointed out where the maintenance on the cars would take place and stated the bay doors are located in the back and none of it is visible from the street.
Mr. Usery stated the Commission has a letter from Fire Marshal Ed Shirley who states he has reviewed the plans and there is more than adequate access around the back of the building and to the area where the vehicles would be stored. There is also a fire hydrant located in the front right next to the driveway.
Ed Spazzarini, 10 Enfield Garden Drive, stated what they would like to do is very light volume used car sales of vehicles that they purchase at auctions. People wouldn’t be coming to the facility cold. They would call ahead. The cars would be advertised on Craig’s List or the Hartford Courant. They would make an appointment and come and look at the car. They are not looking to have people just drop in and look at cars. The volume would be very small.
Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to approve PH# 2695 – Special Use Permit to allow limited motor vehicle sales at 38 Post Office Road in an Industrial 2 (I-2) District, Map 47, Lot 51, Interstate Motors, LLC, applicant; Post Office Road, LLC owner, subject to conformance with the Referenced Plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
Special Permit prepared for Interstate Motors LLC, 38 Post Office Road, Enfield, Connecticut 06082, scale 1” =40’ , dated 5/26/10 prepared by J. R. Russo and Associates, LLC.
Conditions to be met prior to signing of plans:
1. The plan submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. The file number “PH 2695” shall be displayed prominently the final plan sheet either in the title block or in the area around it.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this motion shall be placed on the final plans submitted for signing.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
4. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
General Conditions:
5. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
6. This project shall be maintained in accordance with the hearing record. Minor modifications to the approved project may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
7. Any necessary permits for the operation of the use as approved must be obtained within a year of the effective date of this approval or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
8. The project shall be completed by July 8, 2015 or this approval shall be considered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
9. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
Chairman Duren asked if the applicant had any problem with the conditions and Attorney Fahey confirmed they did not have any problems with them.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
d. PH#2696 – Proposed Zone Change from Industrial-1 (I-1) to Residential-33 (R-33) for approximately 74.5 acres of land located at 110 North Street, Map 100, Lot 005; Catholic Cemeteries Association, Archdiocese of Hartford, Owner/Applicant. (May be kept open until 7/22/10)
Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if he received the certification of ownership. Mr. Giner stated he can confirm that he viewed the assessor’s records and the applicant is in fact the owner of the property. The owner is the Archdiocese of Hartford. Attorney Fahey stated as part of an A-2 survey, the name of the property owner has to be put on the survey. The Town of Enfield requirements require an A-2 survey. Chairman Duren stated it is usually with the application and there wasn’t anything included in the file.
Mr. Giner stated the owner is the Catholic Cemeteries Association, Archdiocese of Hartford as listed on the assessor’s records.
Attorney Thomas Fahey, Conrad Brejwo, Monsignor Walker, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Craig Neil appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Fahey stated what is before the Commission is an application for a zone change. The parcel that the Catholic Cemeteries owns is 74.5 plus or minus acres and it is currently zoned industrial-1. In Industrial-1 zones, cemeteries are not permitted. There is an existing St. Bernard’s Cemetery adjacent to this parcel and they are nearing capacity. This is an ideal site for the expansion of the cemetery. It is ideal for a couple of reasons. One is that there are residential properties.
Conrad Brejwo presented a site plan showing the subject property. The residential properties are along Holiday Lane, Long View Road, Stony Brook Road, James Street, Westerly Drive and Highview Terrace. There are some industrial zoned properties to the west, north and east as well as some properties that are still zoned Residential along the west including St. Bernard’s Cemetery which they choose to expand at this time.
Chairman Duren noted the entrance to the cemetery is on Park Street. He asked if there will be an entrance down on Stony Brook or in the back. Mr. Brejwo stated no. He showed a survey of the property and the location of St. Bernard’s cemetery. There will be no entrance or exit along this side. It is heavily wooded with a large section of wetlands. The property does end up by Stony Brook Road but due to the amount of wetlands, they will not go that far.
Commissioner Ladd asked if there will be an access from North Street. Mr. Brejwo stated not at this time. He showed a closer scale view of the proposed activity. The back end of the St. Bernard’s Cemetery is a closed loop up against the subject parcel. They are planning to expand the southerly road out and down towards the south ending in a cul de sac at this time. They plan on using the highlighted area in pink for cemetery plots and there are roughly around 3,000 plots there which will take about twenty-five years to fully occupy. On another plan is an overall on which Mr. Brejwo has shown a preliminary future road access way throughout the property. However, they plan to only develop the first section at this time. The remainder will continue to be the existing golf driving range and other farming uses.
Mr. Giner stated this application is for a zone change and they will need to come back for a permit to expand the cemetery.
Attorney Fahey stated the driving range is under a lease and that lease will be honored. It will be there for a while.
Commissioner Falk stated if this is rezoned residential, somewhere down the road they may decide to build houses. Attorney Fahey stated the staff at the ART raised that same issue. There is a restriction that they are placing on here that states since the site is not certified for sewer and water and has a history of EDB in the soil, no sale of lots will be done unless sewer and water is brought to the site and can be handled by special permit conditions. That’s significant. It also plays into why they think the zone change is appropriate. Not only this property but other properties which are more appropriate for an industrial zone than this one haven’t been attracted to industrial zoning because they can’t get sewer and water to it. It is quite a ways away and it is very expensive and there are issues of crossings and things of that nature. That particular area hasn’t been very successful in attracting industrial zoning and until sewer and water is brought there, it probably won’t be. Attorney Fahey stated if they didn’t want a cemetery any more, that would be an issue only if sewer and water was brought there. If an industrial developer can’t bring it there, then certainly residential is not likely to bring it because of the expense. The site is heavily impacted by wetlands and you wouldn’t be able to get the number of lots that you need to justify the huge cost of bringing sewer and water there. Attorney Fahey felt that condition brings a lot of protection to the town.
Commissioner Ladd asked why the ART comments aren’t in the Commission’s meeting packet. Mr. Giner stated this is a zone change and you cannot condition a zone change. Once you do the zone change, you are making a determination that it is suitable for all the uses allowed under R-33. When they come in for a special use permit, at that point the Commission can condition it.
Chairman Duren stated the lack of water and sewer makes it almost prohibitive for industry to go there.
Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve PH#2696 – proposed zone change from Industrial 1 (I-1) to Residential 33 (R-33) for approximately 74.5 acres of land located at 110 North Street, Map 100, Lot 005; Catholic Cemeteries Association, Archdiocese of Hartford, Owner/Applicant, effective August 1, 2010.
Commissioner Ladd stated this zone change is consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Chairman Duren stated the applicant stated they do have a problem and they need to expand.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
e. PH#2697 – Modification to previously approved plans to allow for enlarged decks at the Carriage House Condominiums located in an R-44 Zoning District, Map 52, Lot 420, Carriage House IO – Enfield Association, Inc., Owners/Applicants. (May be kept open until 7/22/10)
John Buckley, 44 Carriage House, and Mr. Wheelan, Property Manager, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Buckley stated they would like to enlarge the decks. With the present plans they have with the association, all decks would have to be approved by the Board of Directors before going forward. They have come up with four different plans. Right now they have had a lot of requests to expand the decks because they are small. They have brought this before the Board and the Board has approved it and they are before the Commission for an approval.
Chairman Duren stated the Commission has certification that the signs were posted and also a note from the Association signed by the Secretary stating they are authorized to make the presentation. The Commission has in their meeting folder several exhibits that are examples of their proposals.
Commissioner Drinan asked if the decks would be limited to the four shown. Mr. Buckley stated if there was a need to make a change, they would come back to the Commission.
Mr. Giner stated the second waiver listed in his memo of July 1, 2010 is not necessary.
Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to waive the full submission requirements in accordance with Section 9.2.10C with the finding that the information is not necessary in order to decide on the application’s conformance with these Regulations. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve PH#2697 – Modification to previously approved plans to allow for enlarged decks at the Carriage House Condominiums located in an R-44 Zoning District, Map 52, Lot 420, Carriage House IO – Enfield Association, Inc., Owners/Applicants. This approval is subject to conformance with the application of record and the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to signing of Certificate:
1. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
2. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land Records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of permits.
General Conditions:
3. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
4. A Special Permit approved by the Commission is valid for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of approval of such application. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained within a year of the effective date of this approval or the permit shall be rendered null and void. The Commission may grant an extension of this period for an additional one (1) year upon written request of the applicant.
5. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
6. Exhibits #6 and #7, examples a, b, c, and d, submitted with the application show the approved layouts of the decks.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
f. XZA#10-11 – Proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Regulations to eliminate the requirement for Zoning Permits to be issued on most projects that also require building permits and have the ZEO utilize the building permit form to sign off on such projects. Town of Enfield Development Services, Applicant.
Mr. Giner stated prior to 2003 there was no requirement for zoning permits. At that time, we were trying to see how we could raise some additional revenue and have better control over things that didn’t require a building permit by having a zoning permit. At that time, by ordinance, the Council established the fees and the Commission amended its regulations to include zoning permits as a required part of the application process. Most of these are for additions, decks or pools or things that are small and residential in nature. Shortly after that the State started tacking on a $10 fee for every municipal permit. In subsequent years, the state fee now is $60 for a permit. Mr. Giner stated they initially set the fees thinking they wouldn’t be too onerous on the residential applications. For instance, a $40 fee for a deck - today that permit is now $100. So it’s a significant expense. Anything under 100 square feet would be a fee of $20. Now that fee would be $80 with the state fee tacked on. In weighing the costs and benefits and trying to get the process a little more streamlined for residents, the decision was why not go back to pre 2003 levels. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has a spot to sign off. The building permit requires you to put a plot plan on there with all the information needed. With zoning permits, there is a duplicate set of records being kept. The idea was to get rid of the section of the regulations where we are duplicating the building permit process. Mr. Giner stated we would still require sign permits and things that need to keep records of and temporary structures that don’t go through the building permit process. In addition, the Town has raised some of the building permit fees effective July 1, 2010. There might be some loss of revenue but this regulation change would go a great deal toward benefiting residential properties.
Chairman Duren stated it would be a wash for the town. Mr. Giner agreed and stated from a public relations point of view, a very good one. He always has to explain to people why the fees are so high. Avoiding that one step and getting people back to one counter would be beneficial especially with the cuts to the staff. Mr. Giner stated in this way it will get you into the building department and you still need to talk to the zoning enforcement officer to make sure everything is okay before you submit your permit. It will help people and speed up the process for the smaller projects.
Chairman Duren opened this application to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Drinan, to approve XZA#10-11 – Proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Regulations to eliminate the requirement for Zoning Permits to be issued on most projects that also require building permits and have the ZEO utilize the building permit form to sign off on such projects. These changes are as indicated in Exhibit 2 of the record. Town of Enfield Development Services Department, Applicant; effective August 1, 2010. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
NEW BUSINESS
b. SPR#1501 – Request to add telecommunications antennae and equipment to an existing water tank located at 1111 Enfield Street, in an HR-33 District, Map 20, Lot 122; Clearwire LLC by Maxton Technology, Inc., Applicant; CT Water Company, Owner. (Deadline for decision – July 22 meeting)
Thomas Flynn, the Site Development Project Manager for Maxton Technology, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He is here on behalf of Clearwire LLC. Mr. Flynn has an office at 1296 Blue Hills Avenue in Bloomfield, Connecticut.
Chairman Duren stated the Commission has a letter of authorization from the Connecticut Water Company giving permission for Mr. Flynn to address the Commission.
Commissioner Ladd stated on the photo simulations on the east view, PS3, it shows a lot of rust on these tanks. He wondered if people going up to paint these are going to be affected by the radiation. He asked how this would affect people maintaining the tank.
Mr. Flynn stated they would have to turn off the antennas as they were approaching and working in front of them. The radiation that anyone is exposed to decreases dramatically as you go away from it. The short answer is they have to turn it off to do the proper maintenance. There is enough room to get behind them to paint it but on the regular maintenance schedule part of the leases that all the carriers use for these types of facilities requires them to turn off the system while they are being maintained. Mr. Flynn stated these are relatively low power overall in terms of what type of exposure there is to anybody.
Commissioner Falk asked how many antennas are up there now. Mr. Flynn stated there are two carriers there right now, Sprint and Nextel which counts as one because they merged but they have two antennas and Singular is there as well. Clearwire would be number four.
Commissioner Falk stated he likes the idea of combining what is already there as opposed to constructing new towers.
Mr. Giner stated this is a site plan approval. If they built a new tower today, it would be the citing council that would approve it. Mr. Giner stated before the citing council took control, we try to encourage new buildings by making it a special permit to put up a tower and a site plan to utilize existing buildings. This is something that is encouraged rather than new tower growth.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to approve SPR#1501 – Request to add telecommunications antennae and equipment to an existing water tank located at 1111 Enfield Street, in an HR-33 District, Map 20, Lot 122; Clearwire LLC by Maxton Technology, Inc., applicant; CT Water Company, owner.
Referenced Plans:
“Enfield Water Tank CT-HFD0005A, 1111 Enfield Street, Enfield, CT 06082”, 8 Sheets C-1 through C-6 and E-1 and E-2, by Clearwire Clear Wireless, LLC, revised to 5/4/2010 (Exhibit 6 in the record).
General Conditions:
1. This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. All applicable Building and Fire Codes must be complied with prior to the issuance of any permits.
3. By acceptance of this approval and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
c. Section 8-24 Referral from the Town Council regarding a proposed swap of approximately 9.3 acres of land between the Town of Enfield and Eppendorf Real Estate Corporation for land located at and adjacent to 175 Freshwater Boulevard (Subject to Town Council action at July 6 meeting.)
Chairman Duren read a letter from Town Manager Matthew Coppler dated July 6, 2010 regarding the proposed land swap of 9.3 acres of land between the Town of Enfield and Eppendorf Real Estate Corporation. On July 6, the Town Council voted to forward the request to the Commission for an 8-24 Review.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has a memo from him. The motion would be to give a favorable recommendation to the Town Council. Mr. Giner stated the Council also scheduled a public hearing on July 19 which they are required to do before they can dispose of land. There is an application that is to be accepted later in the meeting for work on the part that is being swapped. Wetlands scheduled a hearing on July 20, 2010.
Chairman Duren saw a need for some meetings in August. Mr. Giner stated it depends how everything falls into place. They are having a special ART on Monday on the application.
Chairman Duren stated there is a need for a twenty-four hour notice with the Town Clerk to schedule a special meeting. He noted it is great that Enfield has a company in this day and age that is able to expand.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve the Town Council’s Section 8-24 referral request for the land swap of 9.3 acres in the industrial park between Eppendorf and the Town of Enfield.
Commissioner Falk felt this was a good idea. He thinks when the industrial park was originally proposed, there was a lot more activity and use planned for it but the wetlands became an issue and restricted what could be done. Any opportunity that we can use to expand it and increase the tax base has got to be a plus for the town.
Chairman Duren stated the Commission is voting on the fact that they agree with the land swap and think it’s a great idea.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Drinan and Gregory voting.
13. Other Business
a. Report from Policy Review Committee
b. Report from Signage Policy Review Committee
c. Discussion of Tag Sale Regulations
d. Zoning Enforcement Procedures – Chairman Duren stated the ZEO is going to get together with Commissioner Longhi and come in with a clean slate.
Chairman Duren requested some dates for special meetings in August.
Chairman Duren stated Mr. Coppler wants to meet with the Chairman, both Vice Chairmen and the Secretary and go over what has to be done regarding the Plan of Conservation and Development. The Council thought they had to do it after this Commission and they have to do it before the Commission. Mr. Giner stated on July 14 in the Manager’s Conference Room there will be a joint meeting with the Council. He will send the Commission an email on this meeting. Chairman Duren saw a need for the Commission to have a clean copy of the plan to work from. Mr. Giner stated the draft that the Commission has has not changed.
APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED:
The following applications were received by the Commission:
Public Hearings:
XSD#10-15 – Resubdivision of 9.3+/- acres of Town owned land off Freshwater Boulevard for the purpose of transfer to adjacent parcel of land located at 175 Freshwater Boulevard in an Industrial Park (IP) District, Portion of Map 56, Lot 23, Town of Enfield, applicant/owner.
Chairman Duren noted the hearing is scheduled for July 22 but if the Town Council doesn’t act, the Commission cannot do it. Mr. Giner stated the Town authorized the Town Manager to proceed with the application. It won’t go forward if it doesn’t get transferred but there was a motion at the Council meeting on Monday for the Town Manager to proceed with the subdivision. Chairman Duren stated he thought the Town Attorney on Barrett Road said not to do so. Mr. Giner stated they said the Commission could and condition it but she left it up to the Commission. Mr. Giner stated there have been motions by the Council to go ahead and proceed with this. Mr. Giner stated this is a resubdivision signed by the Town Manager. The town is the applicant.
A public hearing will be scheduled for July 22, 2010.
PH#2698 – Special Use Permit for a 3,200 square foot addition to an existing shopping center with related site work at Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Avenue, in a Business Regional (BR) District, Map 45, Lot 8; Paramount Realty Services, Owner/Applicant.
A public hearing will be scheduled for July 22, 2010. (Must close same night unless extension is granted.)
PH#2699 – Special Use Permit to allow the renting of rooms to two guests in a single-family house located at 21 David Street in a Residential 33 (R-33) District; Map 54, Lot 97, Susan Parker, Owner/Applicant.
Mr. Giner stated the regulations do allow as an accessory use by the owner of a house the renting of rooms up to two guests but it has to go through a special permit. Anything above two guests would be classified as a rooming house. If you look at the use tables in the regulations, it says the renting of rooms to no more than two guests is allowed as an accessory use. The condition is very strict. The person has to live there and cannot use it as a rooming house.
A public hearing will be scheduled for July 22, 2010. (Must close same night unless extension is granted.)
Site Plans:
SPR31503 – Request to add telecommunications antennae and equipment to the former Polish National Home Building located at 4 Alden Avenue, in a TVCZ District, Map 27, Lot 99, by Maxton Technology, Inc. for Clearwire LLC, Applicant; Amelies LLC, Owner.
Mr. Giner stated this application does require an ERSC referral. They meet the same night as the Commission and he will put this item at the end of the agenda. Hopefully, they will give a favorable recommendation and the Commission will be able to hear the application.
SPR#1504 – Site Plan Review for proposed 138,000 s.f. building addition with associated parking and drainage improvements at and adjacent to 175 Freshwater Boulevard in an Industrial Park (IP) District, Map 55, Lot 1 and a portion of Map 56, Lot 23; Eppendorf Real Estate Corp. Owner/Applicant; Town of Enfield, Owner (Map 56, Lot 23).
Other:
FLD#029 – Permit for conducting activities within the 100 year flood limit related to the proposed 3,200 s.f. addition to an existing shopping center with related site work at Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Avenue, in a Business Regional (BR) District, Map 45, Lot 8; Paramount Realty Services, Owner/Applicant.
Mr. Giner stated this is a companion to PH#2698. He will put them together on the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Drinan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Peter Falk, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|